Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
combination, “there must be some motivation, suggestion, or
teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination
that was made by the applicant”, (quoting In re Dance, 160 F.3d
1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Having reviewed the Berry and Owens references, we find no
factual basis or motivation for suggesting their combination even
in light of the Examiner’s contention that the motivation to
combine Owens and Berry is “for access protection.” Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Further, claims 27 and 28 are dependent upon
claim 26 and therefore include all the limitations of claim 26.
Hence, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed; however, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
24
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007